243 réponses à ce sujet

[Trogdorx]

Jos Hendriks wrote...

Sitting in a piece of cover for an extended period of time and not moving away from it has never been an intended element of ME3's combat. While long range players in other third person shooters may prefer that approach to cover usage, we never designed towards this, not for singleplayer, and not for multiplayer. To me personally, ME3 multiplayer's nature of allowing people to play together and coordinate together (something that does not necessarily happen in public games with random people) actually solidifies the long range player's role (mostly snipers) as one that comes to full realization when coordinated with other players. 

Based on some of the combat we did in Mass Effect 2 we found that players tended to get into the first piece of cover they could, and then proceeded to fight through an entire combat scenario without moving. This is a valid approach, but we felt that large areas of designed combat space would simply go unused because of this, and we wanted to approach things differently so that players would make more use of the entire combat space. This especially because we spend quite a bit of time on the level design side figuring out cool ways for people to move through combat spaces. Fast-forward to ME3 and you can start seeing the roots for the different enemy factions.

The enemy factions in the game all have been designed to have one or more units that could perform different roles. When combined, these would provide a constant but varied challenge. There are basic combat units, suppression units encouraging you to be in cover, slow pressure units that encourage you to not sit in one location (unless you coordinate to keep them at bay), and tank units. Combined, these units come across as aggressive and require immediate response, which incentivized players to make use of an entire area. 

On level design: So, basically, you looked at how people liked to play, decided that wasn't how you wanted them to play "because it wastes your hard work", and so designed the next game around making that playstyle difficult? What, out of spite? Yeah, how dare those players do something logical. We'd better put in units that have crazy accuracy with grenades, units that can move ridiculously quickly, and other nonsense, just so we can be sure everyone is running around the map like this is Halo or Quake and we feel like our level designers' work is being appreciated. I'd insert an emoticon here but this forum doesn't have one that expresses sufficient frustration.

As it is, all of the maps, singleplayer and multiplayer, are too small for sniper rifles to really have a fundamental purpose. I mean, you gave them a gameplay purpose, recent DLC notwithstanding, in providing units with abilities like tactical cloak that give slow-firing, big-damage weapons like sniper rifles a means of being effective. But that same class can also use that ability with shotguns which do the same thing at shorter ranges. So if you just take the sniper rifle on its own and say, where does this fit on the battlefield that no other gun does, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a situation that couldn't also be handled by an AR or pistol. The maps are simply too small. When I think sniper map, this is the size that comes to my mind:
http://www.mw2blog.c...-Map-Derail.jpg
That's Derail from COD: Modern Warfare 2. Note that even though it has a lot of open areas for sniping, it also has a lot of cover and buildings you can go into for close-range combat. This is the size of map I prefer, and wish I'd see more of, rather than the small maps we've been seeing lately in the ME3's, Crysis 2's, COD:BLOPS and so on.

On communication: Bioware, I and a lot of other people cannot use voice chat. I won't get into why because I could only speak for myself and I'm sure there are a lot of reasons. I play on PC, and I can probably count on one hand the number of times I've heard people using voice chat out of hundreds of rounds played. Therefore there is absolutely no communication between players other than simply looking at what others are doing. Why can't we have a text chat? Surely console players could bring up a virtual keyboard and punch in a few abbreviated words to get a message across, and PC players have a keyboard. Do you realize how huge this would be for players' enjoyment of the game, being able to coordinate with your team as you suggest? Huge. HUGE. Better than everything you put into this last DLC combined-HUGE.

[Majestix333]

@Thalamask: As far as I can understand, your issue is regarding the basic functions of short-range and long-range capabilities; with short-range being able to attack up-close and subsequently flee the scene before getting caught; and users of long-ranged weapons providing sniper fire from the distance while being exposed to potential flanks. The obvious solution to this is to conduct long-ranged activities while expecting to eventually be flanked - in response the smart thing to do is to travel to the next available sniper position and continue from there. You cannot deny the simple fact that fundamentally close quarter combat is the counter to long range. Thus, forcing you to find an alternative temporary campsite.

Furthermore, with all the complaining you have provided (no offence, it is what it is), what would be your solution to this issue and why?

[Majestix333]

Air Quotes wrote...

Majestix333 wrote...

@Thalamask: As far as I can understand, your issue is regarding the basic functions of short-range and long-range capabilities; with short-range being able to attack up-close and subsequently flee the scene before getting caught; and users of long-ranged weapons providing sniper fire from the distance while being exposed to potential flanks. The obvious solution to this is to conduct long-ranged activities while expecting to eventually be flanked - in response the smart thing to do is to travel to the next available sniper position and continue from there. You cannot deny the simple fact that fundamentally close quarter combat is the counter to long range. Thus, forcing you to find an alternative temporary campsite.

Furthermore, with all the complaining you have provided (no offence, it is what it is), what would be your solution to this issue and why?

Snipers just kill too slow. You have to constantly run around the map to have range on the enemies. 

To put in perspective - GI with a Claymore = 30 minutes on Gold Vs Cerberus even on a pretty large map. With a sniper you're looking at 40+ easily. 

There is always the Ying to the Yang. With characters such as the GI equipping a Claymore, you have high risk and high return. Consequently, firing a sniper rifle from the distance provides you satisfactory damage output and a level of safety. Flanking isn't taken into consideration as you can get flanked in both scenarios and as I have indicated, in Mass effect, you should always expect some sort of flank from the enemy. However, back on topic, 30 minutes shotgun runs vs 40 minutes sniper runs is perhaps how it should be. In retrospect, back when snipers were the craze, this discussion would have never passed the second page. In my opinion, that is the reason why snipers have been crippled; in order to prevent that Sniper rifle phase from returning.

Modifié par Majestix333, 11 octobre 2012 - 02:42 .

[Jos Hendriks]

Trogdorx wrote...

On level design: So, basically, you looked at how people liked to play, decided that wasn't how you wanted them to play "because it wastes your hard work", and so designed the next game around making that playstyle difficult? What, out of spite? Yeah, how dare those players do something logical. We'd better put in units that have crazy accuracy with grenades, units that can move ridiculously quickly, and other nonsense, just so we can be sure everyone is running around the map like this is Halo or Quake and we feel like our level designers' work is being appreciated. I'd insert an emoticon here but this forum doesn't have one that expresses sufficient frustration.

We always look at how people play, different play styles and approaches. ME2's combat did not incentivize players to move, which meant players stuck to the first place they find. That is fine. For ME3, we wanted players to engage the combat spaces more as a matter of advancing the combat and to make things more active.
We set goals of what we'd like to accomplish with something, and we find out how that works out in practice. Level design informs gameplay. The biggest shift from ME2 to ME3 has been the composition of enemy types and their roles relative to the player. Level design needs to reflect this to really work, so we built around a more dynamic situation where people would advance or fall back rather than stay in one place. You can still stay in one place, but it comes with risks. 
Ultimately, I'm not here to spite or frustrate the player, I'm here to facilitate gameplay and make enjoyable and balanced layouts for you to play in. Halo and Quake are cool games, but they don't serve as inspiration for the way we deal with things. Being from an Unreal Tournament background myself as far as level design goes, I can tell you that the ME3 MP levels are very differently designed than any level I've ever designed for UT. 

As it is, all of the maps, singleplayer and multiplayer, are too small for sniper rifles to really have a fundamental purpose. I mean, you gave them a gameplay purpose, recent DLC notwithstanding, in providing units with abilities like tactical cloak that give slow-firing, big-damage weapons like sniper rifles a means of being effective. But that same class can also use that ability with shotguns which do the same thing at shorter ranges. So if you just take the sniper rifle on its own and say, where does this fit on the battlefield that no other gun does, I think you'd be hard pressed to find a situation that couldn't also be handled by an AR or pistol. The maps are simply too small. When I think sniper map, this is the size that comes to my mind:
http://www.mw2blog.c...-Map-Derail.jpg
That's Derail from COD: Modern Warfare 2. Note that even though it has a lot of open areas for sniping, it also has a lot of cover and buildings you can go into for close-range combat. This is the size of map I prefer, and wish I'd see more of, rather than the small maps we've been seeing lately in the ME3's, Crysis 2's, COD:BLOPS and so on.

I will have to disagree with you on this. Everyone approaches sniper rifles and other long range weapons differently, but the way we deal with them is consistent and I don't think that people with sniper rifles can't snipe in our levels. On top of that, comparing what weapon can be used in what situation is not particularly interesting. Sniper rifles are ranged weapons. The more range requirement you put on a weapon or power or anything, the more restricted that weapon is. It works that way for any game. Pistols and assault rifles are accurate in bursts and thus can also be used for longer ranges than their ideal short to medium range, but sniper rifles will still be more accurate at longer range. At the same time, you can use a sniper rifle against enemies that are 5-10 meters away as well instead of a pistol or assault rifle.  
Your level example from Modern Warfare 2 is nice, but that is a different game, with a different approach to weapons and gameplay than ME3 is. It's great that you like that kind of level, and I'll agree that it is enjoyable in the game it's in, but that's simply not what ME3 is. 

[Thalamask]

Majestix333 wrote...

@Thalamask: As far as I can understand, your issue is regarding the basic functions of short-range and long-range capabilities; with short-range being able to attack up-close and subsequently flee the scene before getting caught; and users of long-ranged weapons providing sniper fire from the distance while being exposed to potential flanks. The obvious solution to this is to conduct long-ranged activities while expecting to eventually be flanked - in response the smart thing to do is to travel to the next available sniper position and continue from there. You cannot deny the simple fact that fundamentally close quarter combat is the counter to long range. Thus, forcing you to find an alternative temporary campsite.

Furthermore, with all the complaining you have provided (no offence, it is what it is), what would be your solution to this issue and why?

Actually, no... it's not about the basic function, so much as the niche each role fills. When you can use multiple playstyles, you kind of expect each one to fill a certain niche that the other's can't. A sort of X beats Y beats Z beats X. This role is good here, but bad there. That role is bad here, but good there.

My complaint is that (based solely on my play experience, obviously I can't speak for others) CQC doesn't really seem to have any downsides and (if not played by a complete moron) is generally immune to the units that are designed to counter it, while ranged does have it's designed downsides (vulnerable to CQC) while simultaneously being threatened by the thing it's supposed to be good at (other ranged units).

To put it into practice, let's talk Geth:

Pyros and Hunters are a ranged cover users worst nightmares (for me at least). They're meant to be, and that's totally fine. A good CQC can eat them for breakfast. Again, as it should be.

Prime's and Rocket dudes are designed to limit/threaten the CQC dude by forcing him to use cover, while being vulnerable to ranged dudes who can take them out from cover. However, if the CQC dude is not completely incompetent, he's around a corner somewhere and they don't have LOS on him anyway, so the threat is largely meaningless. Invariably the Primes and Rocket dudes get bored and start shooting at the ranged dudes, forcing them to stay in cover.

The "ranged" niche is broken here. The CQC-threat is more troublesome for ranged than for CQC.

[Cyonan]

Thalamask wrote...

Actually, no... it's not about the basic function, so much as the niche each role fills. When you can use multiple playstyles, you kind of expect each one to fill a certain niche that the other's can't. A sort of X beats Y beats Z beats X. This role is good here, but bad there. That role is bad here, but good there.

My complaint is that (based solely on my play experience, obviously I can't speak for others) CQC doesn't really seem to have any downsides and (if not played by a complete moron) is generally immune to the units that are designed to counter it, while ranged does have it's designed downsides (vulnerable to CQC) while simultaneously being threatened by the thing it's supposed to be good at (other ranged units).

To put it into practice, let's talk Geth:

Pyros and Hunters are a ranged cover users worst nightmares (for me at least). They're meant to be, and that's totally fine. A good CQC can eat them for breakfast. Again, as it should be.

Prime's and Rocket dudes are designed to limit/threaten the CQC dude by forcing him to use cover, while being vulnerable to ranged dudes who can take them out from cover. However, if the CQC dude is not completely incompetent, he's around a corner somewhere and they don't have LOS on him anyway, so the threat is largely meaningless. Invariably the Primes and Rocket dudes get bored and start shooting at the ranged dudes, forcing them to stay in cover.

The "ranged" niche is broken here. The CQC-threat is more troublesome for ranged than for CQC.

Just as CQC doesn't have a downside that can't be outskilled, long range doesn't have a downside that can't be outskilled either.

Why are the Pryos and Hunters getting close to you? Both of them can't attack you until they get into CQC, and Pyros don't get increased movement speed.

You're making long ranged look far worse than it is. I can just turn around and say that if the long ranged fighter isn't incompetant, they've killed the Pyro or Hunter before it's even gotten close enough to attack them. If you get a lot of them at once, then just take the 10 seconds to relocate to a new piece of cover.

[Majestix333]

Air Quotes wrote...

Majestix333 wrote...

Air Quotes wrote...

Majestix333 wrote...

@Thalamask: As far as I can understand, your issue is regarding the basic functions of short-range and long-range capabilities; with short-range being able to attack up-close and subsequently flee the scene before getting caught; and users of long-ranged weapons providing sniper fire from the distance while being exposed to potential flanks. The obvious solution to this is to conduct long-ranged activities while expecting to eventually be flanked - in response the smart thing to do is to travel to the next available sniper position and continue from there. You cannot deny the simple fact that fundamentally close quarter combat is the counter to long range. Thus, forcing you to find an alternative temporary campsite.

Furthermore, with all the complaining you have provided (no offence, it is what it is), what would be your solution to this issue and why?

Snipers just kill too slow. You have to constantly run around the map to have range on the enemies. 

To put in perspective - GI with a Claymore = 30 minutes on Gold Vs Cerberus even on a pretty large map. With a sniper you're looking at 40+ easily. 

There is always the Ying to the Yang. With characters such as the GI equipping a Claymore, you have high risk and high return. Consequently, firing a sniper rifle from the distance provides you satisfactory damage output and a level of safety. Flanking isn't taken into consideration as you can get flanked in both scenarios and as I have indicated, in Mass effect, you should always expect some sort of flank from the enemy. However, back on topic, 30 minutes shotgun runs vs 40 minutes sniper runs is perhaps how it should be. In retrospect, back when snipers were the craze, this discussion would have never passed the second page. To conclude, in my opinion, that is the reason why snipers have been crippled; in order to prevent that Sniper rifle phase from returning.

Except there is no safety. Especially with 1 shot sniper rifles. Enemies shoot you with great accuracy from long distance, causing you to miss. They close in fast and start throwing nades or melee you. Point is - I can use shotgun both from long range and up close (even better up close) and snipers lose their effectiveness drastically up close. And I don't have to waste time zooming in/out or reaquiring a target. 

I can't deny anything you have said, however if you would allow it - working towards a plausible solution, without reverting back to the sniper rifle phase and the storm of FBWG lobbies, would involve what? Because as you would probably know, the need for all these "close in fast and start throwing nades or melee you" type units was to prevent instances of long-term camping as was the situation on FBWG and Glacier; and ofcourse for the reason Jos mentioned of encouraging players to use other parts of the map. Without all this in place, many people would simply camp one particular spot and farm credits; which from my understanding is boring to a majority of the playerbase. Personally, it appears BW sacrificed the ability to use long-range more effectively for less whining about how boring farming parties were.

[Thalamask]

Majestix333 wrote...
I can't deny anything you have said, however if you would allow it - working towards a plausible solution, without reverting back to the sniper rifle phase and the storm of FBWG lobbies, would involve what? Because as you would probably know, the need for all these "close in fast and start throwing nades or melee you" type units was to prevent instances of long-term camping as was the situation on FBWG and Glacier; and ofcourse for the reason Jos mentioned of encouraging players to use other parts of the map. Without all this in place, many people would simply camp one particular spot and farm credits; which from my understanding is boring to a majority of the playerbase. Personally, it appears BW sacrificed the ability to use long-range more effectively for less whining about how boring farming parties were.

Why is camping/farming considered such a negative thing?

I don't much like it either, and I'll usually leave a lobby that looks like a farm one, but that's my choice. What right do I have to dictate how people play the game they purchased with their own money?

If we had massive servers with 64+ people each, it's conceivable that you might not have too much of a choice within your ping region, and then the impact of some players decisions on others is much larger. But game-sizes are 4. Just 4. If you don't want to farm, don't. If you want to, go for it.

At the end of the day, what you've demonstrated above is that there is an "approved" way to play the game. We're being TOLD how to have fun. And that just takes all the fun out of it.

There isn't a car salesman in the world who would say : "Well... you can only drive this car on Tuesdays and Thursdays. And I'm installing a computer chip to make sure you obey this rule." He'd never sell any cars, and everybody would call him an idiot.

It's not really that different.

[Thalamask]

Cyonan wrote...
Just as CQC doesn't have a downside that can't be outskilled, long range doesn't have a downside that can't be outskilled either.

Why are the Pryos and Hunters getting close to you? Both of them can't attack you until they get into CQC, and Pyros don't get increased movement speed.

You're making long ranged look far worse than it is. I can just turn around and say that if the long ranged fighter isn't incompetant, they've killed the Pyro or Hunter before it's even gotten close enough to attack them. If you get a lot of them at once, then just take the 10 seconds to relocate to a new piece of cover

I disagree with you completely.

If CQC is playing "properly", the things that are supposed to threaten him (i.e. units that outrange him) CAN'T threaten him. He's always out of LOS. If ranged is playing "properly" they can't eliminate all the CQC units because they have to spend so much time hiding from the ranged ones.

As demonstrated in a previous post, right-hand advantage and corner work are drastically less effective for ranged dudes than CQC and, as a result, ranged spends more time doing nothing regenning shields.

[Majestix333]

Thalamask wrote...

Majestix333 wrote...

@Thalamask: As far as I can understand, your issue is regarding the basic functions of short-range and long-range capabilities; with short-range being able to attack up-close and subsequently flee the scene before getting caught; and users of long-ranged weapons providing sniper fire from the distance while being exposed to potential flanks. The obvious solution to this is to conduct long-ranged activities while expecting to eventually be flanked - in response the smart thing to do is to travel to the next available sniper position and continue from there. You cannot deny the simple fact that fundamentally close quarter combat is the counter to long range. Thus, forcing you to find an alternative temporary campsite.

Furthermore, with all the complaining you have provided (no offence, it is what it is), what would be your solution to this issue and why?

Actually, no... it's not about the basic function, so much as the niche each role fills. When you can use multiple playstyles, you kind of expect each one to fill a certain niche that the other's can't. A sort of X beats Y beats Z beats X. This role is good here, but bad there. That role is bad here, but good there.

My complaint is that (based solely on my play experience, obviously I can't speak for others) CQC doesn't really seem to have any downsides and (if not played by a complete moron) is generally immune to the units that are designed to counter it, while ranged does have it's designed downsides (vulnerable to CQC) while simultaneously being threatened by the thing it's supposed to be good at (other ranged units).

To put it into practice, let's talk Geth:

Pyros and Hunters are a ranged cover users worst nightmares (for me at least). They're meant to be, and that's totally fine. A good CQC can eat them for breakfast. Again, as it should be.

Prime's and Rocket dudes are designed to limit/threaten the CQC dude by forcing him to use cover, while being vulnerable to ranged dudes who can take them out from cover. However, if the CQC dude is not completely incompetent, he's around a corner somewhere and they don't have LOS on him anyway, so the threat is largely meaningless. Invariably the Primes and Rocket dudes get bored and start shooting at the ranged dudes, forcing them to stay in cover.

The "ranged" niche is broken here. The CQC-threat is more troublesome for ranged than for CQC.

I didn't disagree with you until someone else signalled that you may be implying (in your hypothetical scenario) that the sniper is constantly in the same position. As they said, just run back and regain your distance advantage. Similarly, you can't expect to have an advantage against long-ranged enemies, you are fighting on the same terms. In terms of the apparant lack of downsides to CQC, I do not expect someone with a shotgun to out damage another player employing a sniper rifle both from a distance. Naturally the CQC player would traverse within the comforts of close quarter combat and thus, playing to their strengths. You cannot speak of an example where hunters and pyros beat a sniper rifle when the person playing chooses to stay and die.

[Thalamask]

Majestix333 wrote...

I didn't disagree with you until someone else signalled that you may be implying (in your hypothetical scenario) that the sniper is constantly in the same position. As they said, just run back and regain your distance advantage. Similarly, you can't expect to have an advantage against long-ranged enemies, you are fighting on the same terms. In terms of the apparant lack of downsides to CQC, I do not expect someone with a shotgun to out damage another player employing a sniper rifle both from a distance. Naturally the CQC player would traverse within the comforts of close quarter combat and thus, playing to their strengths. You cannot speak of an example where hunters and pyros beat a sniper rifle when the person playing chooses to stay and die.

But the rest of my argument goes (and I'll admit I didn't restate it in the previous post):

1. Because enemies are so aggressive, you can spend very little time in good ranged positions before having to move.

2. Because enemies are aggressive and the AI's not terrible, they're trying to flank you. As a result, you generally can't move too far before you run into the enemies that are flanking your position.

3. Because they're coming straight at you and flanking at the same time, and maps are (compared to effective non-CQB ranges) actually pretty small, you spend a lot of time having to run THROUGH the enemy lines to reestablish range.

4. Because of 1-3, you'll spend a fair bit of time doing CQC even if you want to do ranged. You can do this by quick scoping, using your Saber as a shotgun, or by equipping a secondary weapon. It doesn't really matter.

5. Given 1-4, there often very little reason NOT to just go CQC to start with. Not only is it generally easier to do, because you don't have to keep switching playstyles your efficiency will probably rise a reasonable amount.

So yes... you CAN do ranged. It's just that there's very little reason (other than mild masochism ) to do so. 

[Majestix333]

Thalamask wrote...

Cyonan wrote...
Just as CQC doesn't have a downside that can't be outskilled, long range doesn't have a downside that can't be outskilled either.

Why are the Pryos and Hunters getting close to you? Both of them can't attack you until they get into CQC, and Pyros don't get increased movement speed.

You're making long ranged look far worse than it is. I can just turn around and say that if the long ranged fighter isn't incompetant, they've killed the Pyro or Hunter before it's even gotten close enough to attack them. If you get a lot of them at once, then just take the 10 seconds to relocate to a new piece of cover

I disagree with you completely.

If CQC is playing "properly", the things that are supposed to threaten him (i.e. units that outrange him) CAN'T threaten him. He's always out of LOS. If ranged is playing "properly" they can't eliminate all the CQC units because they have to spend so much time hiding from the ranged ones.

As demonstrated in a previous post, right-hand advantage and corner work are drastically less effective for ranged dudes than CQC and, as a result, ranged spends more time doing nothing regenning shields.

At this point in time, we (being the players) have an obvious advantage of our own will and to do whatever the hell we want. Our enemies, the AI, is designed to be predictable and easy to defeat. If you wanted the downside to CQC to be more apparant, BW could make the AI duck in and out of cover, constantly run back to maintain their distance advantage and force their CQC units to attack you while their long-ranged showered you with fire during your eventual moment of distraction. But they wouldn't, because then no one would play as the game would be too difficult.

[Thalamask]

Majestix333 wrote...

At this point in time, we (being the players) have an obvious advantage of our own will and to do whatever the hell we want. Our enemies, the AI, is designed to be predictable and easy to defeat. If you wanted the downside to CQC to be more apparant, BW could make the AI duck in and out of cover, constantly run back to maintain their distance advantage and force their CQC units to attack you while their long-ranged showered you with fire during your eventual moment of distraction. But they wouldn't, because then no one would play as the game would be too difficult.

And then CQC would be in exactly the same boat that ranged is in now. It's very much coming down to a "this is how you will play the game" ruleset. We don't want you doing X, do we'll make sure you can't. We are OK with Y, so we'll let you.

I like ME3 MP... I just really believe that it can be better.

[Majestix333]

Thalamask wrote...

Majestix333 wrote...

I didn't disagree with you until someone else signalled that you may be implying (in your hypothetical scenario) that the sniper is constantly in the same position. As they said, just run back and regain your distance advantage. Similarly, you can't expect to have an advantage against long-ranged enemies, you are fighting on the same terms. In terms of the apparant lack of downsides to CQC, I do not expect someone with a shotgun to out damage another player employing a sniper rifle both from a distance. Naturally the CQC player would traverse within the comforts of close quarter combat and thus, playing to their strengths. You cannot speak of an example where hunters and pyros beat a sniper rifle when the person playing chooses to stay and die.

But the rest of my argument goes (and I'll admit I didn't restate it in the previous post):

1. Because enemies are so aggressive, you can spend very little time in good ranged positions before having to move.

2. Because enemies are aggressive and the AI's not terrible, they're trying to flank you. As a result, you generally can't move too far before you run into the enemies that are flanking your position.

3. Because they're coming straight at you and flanking at the same time, and maps are (compared to effective non-CQB ranges) actually pretty small, you spend a lot of time having to run THROUGH the enemy lines to reestablish range.

4. Because of 1-3, you'll spend a fair bit of time doing CQC even if you want to do ranged. You can do this by quick scoping, using your Saber as a shotgun, or by equipping a secondary weapon. It doesn't really matter.

5. Given 1-4, there often very little reason NOT to just go CQC to start with. Not only is it generally easier to do, because you don't have to keep switching playstyles your efficiency will probably rise a reasonable amount.

So yes... you CAN do ranged. It's just that there's very little reason (other than mild masochism ) to do so. 

I agree, but still my question to you remains...what are your proposals that would lead to a positive solution without hindering other aspects of the game and causing a revert to previous phases of the game? Rather than argue, lets construct the idea of what must be done to implement improvements.

[Majestix333]

Thalamask wrote...

Majestix333 wrote...

At this point in time, we (being the players) have an obvious advantage of our own will and to do whatever the hell we want. Our enemies, the AI, is designed to be predictable and easy to defeat. If you wanted the downside to CQC to be more apparant, BW could make the AI duck in and out of cover, constantly run back to maintain their distance advantage and force their CQC units to attack you while their long-ranged showered you with fire during your eventual moment of distraction. But they wouldn't, because then no one would play as the game would be too difficult.

And then CQC would be in exactly the same boat that ranged is in now. It's very much coming down to a "this is how you will play the game" ruleset. We don't want you doing X, do we'll make sure you can't. We are OK with Y, so we'll let you.

I like ME3 MP... I just really believe that it can be better.

Need examples....ideas...we all want the thing we love to play to be better. But how?

Modifié par Majestix333, 11 octobre 2012 - 03:50 .

[Jos Hendriks]

Thalamask wrote...

My problem comes in the last half of this paragraph. In my opinion, good MP games do not assume that you're always working with a team of your friends. They allow for PUGs which, as you've noted, tend to be far less coordinated. Although public lobbies and voicechat exist, coordination still remains pretty spotty. It's the nature of PUGs.

What you've said (at least the way I read it) is that essentially, long-range combat really needs teamwork to be effective. That's fine as far as it goes, given that this is a coop based game, but that's really the sort of inequality I've been trying to point out.

Ideal or optimal, yes, but effective no. Long range combat can be effective just fine without shorter range teammates to back you up, whether those are your friends or random people in public games. We don't assume you're always working with a group of friends. Having played plenty of public matches myself with people I don't know or communicate much with beyond "I'm down" or "phantom by the stairs" I've not seen that being a detriment to being effective as a long range class.
I feel that I can be effective at long range by myself. It requires mobility, to be sure, and because the longer the range the more restrictive a class is inherently (this is for any game) setting up new positions requires more legwork, but that's what that class is.

If you want to play "sniper", you have to have a buddy watch your back. If you want to run around with a shotgun and shoot stuff in the face, you're aces even on your own. Having a guardian angel might be nice, but it's nowhere nearnecessary.

I disagree. Being in scoped zoom for any duration will decrease immediate situational awareness for nearby, but that's why you allow yourself pause in sniping frequently to make sure you're not compromised. If you're going to be in sniper zoom continuously for extended periods of time, yes, enemies will flank you or surprise you up close, but that's more because you're not playing smartly than. 

If a CQC dude runs off and mucks up the spawn positions, the defensive player (who, for this example, is not a sniper) will work to ensure the team doesn't get flanked. Unfortunately, very shortly, the aggressive, CQC player is going to be hitting the enemies you're fighting off (and slowly retreating from) from behind. Given the spawn system, that means the defensive dude (i.e. the one that stopped the CQC dude getting flanked and dying) is about to be flanked and killed by the dudes that are now spawning behind you. Net result : selfish lone-wolf - 1, teamplayer - 0.

It is a possibility, but the way spawns work deals in distance more than location. Enemies coming from different and new positions that you're not necessarily anticipating or expecting is not exactly a strike against long range play, or against teamplay. The spawn system setup isn't perfect, but it's not an advocate for lone players.

In PUG teams, the game design seems to support solo, lone-wolf play rather than any attempt at teamwork which is why I consider the design to be flawed. Although no game can (or should) force players to work together, well designed ones encourage players to work together by making them dependant on each other. No one person can do everything. For example, if there are 5 types of tasks, no player / class can do more than 3 of them. That's something I believe is missing from ME3 MP. My experience is that aggressive, CQC players can stand on their own, while less aggressive, or non-CQC players can't.

That brings me onto the second point. Even if we assume that everybody has friends to play with all the time (and I know that's a silly assumption), ME3 was published as an Origin exclusive. It means that, once my clanmates move off to another game, all the friends I've built up online outside the clan (on Steam, as it happens) won't help me either. Most of 'em won't use Origin (let's not go there, it's a stupid argument anyway). So if I want to do anything other than PUG, I now have to start setting up an entirely separate set of relationships. That doesn't even consider the issue that most of my playtime comes after my wife is asleep, so I can't use a mike much anyway. I'm reasonably sure that I'm not the only person in this sort of situation, nor am I even in a minority.

Good games encourage people to work together yes, but not necessarily by dependence. Because this is a game that people play in various degrees of cooperation, being able to stand on your own is not a flaw in my opinion. If you don't have friends to play with at any given moment but you want to play anyway, this should be possible. It will be more difficult just because you have nobody you can fall back on, but it is entirely possible because there is not some ultimate dependency you can't overcome. This works for short range and long range classes alike. I do not believe that the kind of dependency you describe is something that would benefit ME3's multiplayer. (honestly not entirely sure what your second point contributes more, the game doesn't depend on playing with friends)

I agree that sitting in once place all game isn't fun. Well... it probably is for some people, but not for me. Anyways, that's beside the point. I've got no problem with moving around during the battle. However, my experience indicates that you can't really fall back slowly, either.

A mad dash for the next piece of cover usually buys you about 10 seconds before you're swarmed again. That gives you enough time for your shields to regen and take a couple of potshots. That's fine for CQC, but not for longer ranged combat.

If you dash 4-5 pieces of cover back you'll buy yourself more time, but you'll often have lost LOS, given up your sight lines and be into the CQC portions of the map. You're also probably about to run into the other spawn that was busy trying to flank your position, leaving you with the option of a panicked rush through their lines so that you can reestablish some range. Even with a cloak, that usually doesn't work so well since they seem to have an uncanny ability to shoot you anyway. Without a cloak, well...

Again, getting appropriate range for a long range character is a defining characteristic of playing that way, and ultimately more restrictive by itself. I don't dispute that there is a higher barrier to entry for you to play a long range character effectively, but that is an inherent problem to the class in any game. 10 seconds to get a few shots off to mitigate immediate risk sounds fine to me and usually puts me in a situation where I get a bit more time to see what's next.

Absolutely agreed, and this sort of design is exactly how the game should be. Unfortunately, that's where theory and practice start to diverge.

As far as I can see, ranged combat comes in primarily two forms. Spike damage (SR's, Crusader, Saber etc.) and sustained damage (AR's, SMG's and maybe Indra and Incisor).

*snip*

Suppression units - now here's where the problem comes, imho. On the face of it, suppression units seem to be to be the ranged units natural prey while being a threat to CQC units because they can't fight back. It looks good on paper, but my experience indicates that it actually works completely the other way around.

CQC units already use tight quarters and right-facing advantage to limit the incoming fire. Step out, BLAM! a dude with your shotty, step back and reload. By and large, this renders them mostly immune to suppression units. Instead, the suppression units usually end up keeping the ranged dudes in cover. The sustained damage guys can't stay out long enough to do significant damage and, without a cloak, the spike damage guys will have trouble lining up a shot (or will be spending most of their time regenning their shields after having done so). Let's not even start on all the screen shake the CQC guys are putting out.

The problem here is that you're side-stepping the actual situation. With suppression enemies. Yes, close range characters can choose to duck away from the suppression type enemies by going into close range areas, but when in the open, the long range player will have the advantage to the close range player when dealing with suppression enemies. It's not so much that close range guys get hit by suppression units, it's that they cannot just freely roam in the open with suppression units around. Characters staying in cover when suppression units are around is exactly the point, and usually this puts the long range character in an advantageous position to deal with them.

Even right face advantage is more effective for CQC, because MATH! If you imagine a standard L shaped corridor, and the CQC dude is using that corner as cover. Without stepping into the open, he can see a 45^ angle. If he takes one step to the right, he'll open up another 15^, which might contain two enemies, and he's not exposed to too much return fire. If a ranged guy does uses right facing advantage, because of the greater distances involved, that single right step can potentially expose him to an entire spawn's worth of enemies, rendering it much less effective (it still works, just not as well).

That's where I think the imbalance is. CQC seems (as always, in my opinion) to work well against everything, even those things that they aren't supposed to, while ranged doesn't work as well, even where it's supposed to be better.

In the right facing advantage, both short range and long range classes expose themselves to enemy fire by leaning out of cover. Luckily, there aren't really any situations that fit the bill of description of a long range character opening themselves to an entire spawn's worth of enemies that makes the step that much less safe.
Again, I don't disagree that shorter range characters are a bit more flexible because they cover a wider range than long range characters do, but I don't agree that this somehow makes long range characters ineffective. 

On a side note, these posts are getting pretty long. Takes quite a bit of time to think on and write these up. 

[ElectroNeonPanda]

There are two issues that keep presenting themselves here.

Firstly, the term CQC can essentially be replaced by Infiltrator because, let's be honest here, the discussion is about ranged vs CQC mechanics as it relates to one class alone. No one else consistently uses SRs, they're essentially designed and balanced around the Infiltrator and no other class exhibits the level of survivability in CQC you're discussing here.  

Secondly, with regards to farming, it wouldn't be as popular if the Store System wasn't so terribly implemented. The fact that you can waste days farming credits only to receive Ammo/Consumable IVs while still having Rare Gear/Weapons to unlock forces you into a mindset where you want to maximise your credit gain with the minimum of risk, at least when playing with randoms. Good luck ever getting a BW representative to acknowledge, let alone discuss, the shortcomings with the Store system though.

Modifié par ElectroNeonPanda, 11 octobre 2012 - 03:55 .

[frostycyke]

Thalamask wrote...

Jos Hendriks wrote...
I've covered levels in an earlier post, and I believe we're at least in agreement that the levels themselves provide options to those playing short range and to those playing long range alike.

Absolutely agreed. No single design element is really prejudiced one way or the other. However, in aggregate, I really do believe that aggressive, mobile combat is rewarded out of proportion to defensive, ranged combat.

Jos Hendriks wrote...
Sitting in a piece of cover for an extended period of time and not moving away from it has never been an intended element of ME3's combat. While long range players in other third person shooters may prefer that approach to cover usage, we never designed towards this, not for singleplayer, and not for multiplayer. To me personally, ME3 multiplayer's nature of allowing people to play together and coordinate together (something that does not necessarily happen in public games with random people) actually solidifies the long range player's role (mostly snipers) as one that comes to full realization when coordinated with other players.

No arguments here. Contrary to popular belief, I'm not really advocating (nor do I support) a "stay in one place all game" playstyle. As you've said, some people enjoy it, but I believe that it's only really appropriate for true milsims.

My problem comes in the last half of this paragraph. In my opinion, good MP games do not assume that you're always working with a team of your friends. They allow for PUGs which, as you've noted, tend to be far less coordinated. Although public lobbies and voicechat exist, coordination still remains pretty spotty. It's the nature of PUGs.

What you've said (at least the way I read it) is that essentially, long-range combat really needs teamwork to be effective. That's fine as far as it goes, given that this is a coop based game, but that's really the sort of inequality I've been trying to point out.

If you want to play "sniper", you have to have a buddy watch your back. If you want to run around with a shotgun and shoot stuff in the face, you're aces even on your own. Having a guardian angel might be nice, but it's nowhere near necessary.

If a CQC dude runs off and mucks up the spawn positions, the defensive player (who, for this example, is not a sniper) will work to ensure the team doesn't get flanked. Unfortunately, very shortly, the aggressive, CQC player is going to be hitting the enemies you're fighting off (and slowly retreating from) from behind. Given the spawn system, that means the defensive dude (i.e. the one that stopped the CQC dude getting flanked and dying) is about to be flanked and killed by the dudes that are now spawning behind you. Net result : selfish lone-wolf - 1, teamplayer - 0.

In PUG teams, the game design seems to support solo, lone-wolf play rather than any attempt at teamwork which is why I consider the design to be flawed. Although no game can (or should) force players to work together, well designed ones encourage players to work together by making them dependant on each other. No one person can do everything. For example, if there are 5 types of tasks, no player / class can do more than 3 of them. That's something I believe is missing from ME3 MP. My experience is that aggressive, CQC players can stand on their own, while less aggressive, or non-CQC players can't.

That brings me onto the second point. Even if we assume that everybody has friends to play with all the time (and I know that's a silly assumption), ME3 was published as an Origin exclusive. It means that, once my clanmates move off to another game, all the friends I've built up online outside the clan (on Steam, as it happens) won't help me either. Most of 'em won't use Origin (let's not go there, it's a stupid argument anyway). So if I want to do anything other than PUG, I now have to start setting up an entirely separate set of relationships. That doesn't even consider the issue that most of my playtime comes after my wife is asleep, so I can't use a mike much anyway. I'm reasonably sure that I'm not the only person in this sort of situation, nor am I even in a minority.

Jos Hendriks wrote...
Based on some of the combat we did in Mass Effect 2 we found that players tended to get into the first piece of cover they could, and then proceeded to fight through an entire combat scenario without moving. This is a valid approach, but we felt that large areas of designed combat space would simply go unused because of this, and we wanted to approach things differently so that players would make more use of the entire combat space. This especially because we spend quite a bit of time on the level design side figuring out cool ways for people to move through combat spaces. Fast-forward to ME3 and you can start seeing the roots for the different enemy factions.

I agree that sitting in once place all game isn't fun. Well... it probably is for some people, but not for me. Anyways, that's beside the point. I've got no problem with moving around during the battle. However, my experience indicates that you can't really fall back slowly, either.

A mad dash for the next piece of cover usually buys you about 10 seconds before you're swarmed again. That gives you enough time for your shields to regen and take a couple of potshots. That's fine for CQC, but not for longer ranged combat.

If you dash 4-5 pieces of cover back you'll buy yourself more time, but you'll often have lost LOS, given up your sight lines and be into the CQC portions of the map. You're also probably about to run into the other spawn that was busy trying to flank your position, leaving you with the option of a panicked rush through their lines so that you can reestablish some range. Even with a cloak, that usually doesn't work so well since they seem to have an uncanny ability to shoot you anyway. Without a cloak, well...

Jos Hendriks wrote...
The enemy factions in the game all have been designed to have one or more units that could perform different roles. When combined, these would provide a constant but varied challenge. There are basic combat units, suppression units encouraging you to be in cover, slow pressure units that encourage you to not sit in one location (unless you coordinate to keep them at bay), and tank units. Combined, these units come across as aggressive and require immediate response, which incentivized players to make use of an entire area.

Absolutely agreed, and this sort of design is exactly how the game should be. Unfortunately, that's where theory and practice start to diverge.

As far as I can see, ranged combat comes in primarily two forms. Spike damage (SR's, Crusader, Saber etc.) and sustained damage (AR's, SMG's and maybe Indra and Incisor).

Basic units are largely irrelevant. Cannon fodder for everybody. No issues here. Tank units also largely irrelevant. Slow to take down, but not particularly threatening if managed right. No issues here either. Pressure units are the natural prey of CQC players and headache for ranged players, exactly the way it should be.

Suppression units - now here's where the problem comes, imho. On the face of it, suppression units seem to be to be the ranged units natural prey while being a threat to CQC units because they can't fight back. It looks good on paper, but my experience indicates that it actually works completely the other way around.

CQC units already use tight quarters and right-facing advantage to limit the incoming fire. Step out, BLAM! a dude with your shotty, step back and reload. By and large, this renders them mostly immune to suppression units. Instead, the suppression units usually end up keeping the ranged dudes in cover. The sustained damage guys can't stay out long enough to do significant damage and, without a cloak, the spike damage guys will have trouble lining up a shot (or will be spending most of their time regenning their shields after having done so). Let's not even start on all the screen shake the CQC guys are putting out.

Even right face advantage is more effective for CQC, because MATH! If you imagine a standard L shaped corridor, and the CQC dude is using that corner as cover. Without stepping into the open, he can see a 45^ angle. If he takes one step to the right, he'll open up another 15^, which might contain two enemies, and he's not exposed to too much return fire. If a ranged guy does uses right facing advantage, because of the greater distances involved, that single right step can potentially expose him to an entire spawn's worth of enemies, rendering it much less effective (it still works, just not as well).

That's where I think the imbalance is. CQC seems (as always, in my opinion) to work well against everything, even those things that they aren't supposed to, while ranged doesn't work as well, even where it's supposed to be better.

It seems your problem isn't when the game itself, but playing in PUG's.The solution is to find some friends.

I want to be challenge when I play with my friends, I hardly ever play in PUG's, my friends work together, cover each other and play our assigned roles, the newer enemies is making things more interesting and I love it.

I'd hate for the game to be catered to friendless PUG players. if you wanna play long range stop playing in PUG's. Be social, make friends.

[Thalamask]

Majestix333 wrote...
I agree, but still my question to you remains...what are your proposals that would lead to a positive solution without hindering other aspects of the game and causing a revert to previous phases of the game? Rather than argue, lets construct the idea of what must be done to implement improvements.

Fair enough.

Given that we can accept the likelyhood of any significant changes is basically zero (they're certainly not going to go out and completely rewrite the game, after all! ) the only changes I'd consider would be small ones. Obviously, I'm not a programmer, nor have I seen the backend code, so my idea of "small" is going to be based on massive guesswork.

As far as CQC goes, I really am fine with where it stands.

For ranged, I'd like to see cover be more useful. Under the current mechanics (as I understand them), when you duck out of cover to shoot, you may as well not be IN cover. Consider what you see when you play: You step almost completely out of vertical/corner cover whenever you want to fire, so you eat basically all fire that's coming your way, and horizontal cover isn't much better, 'cause the AI never aims at your feet. Nobody but a complete moron would actually use the cover that way. Just your head and weapon and half an arm would be sticking out.

Mechanics wise, my suggestion would be a flat increase in either damage resistance or miss chance to represent the reduced damage you take by using cover. I'd also like to see significantly reduced screen shake in aimed mode. It makes for nice effects and horrible aiming. I've got no problem with screen shake when I'm not aiming.

With those two changes, ranged would be able to USE cover and spend more time shooting. They'd still have to move (which I'm fine with), but they wouldn't spend the majority of the game cowering behind a wall waiting for their shields to regen so that they can fire another two rounds.

[Thalamask]

ElectroNeonPanda wrote...
Firstly, the term CQC can essentially be replaced by Infiltrator because, let's be honest here, the discussion is about ranged vs CQC mechanics as it relates to one class alone. No one else consistently uses SRs, they're essentially designed and balanced around the Infiltrator and no other class exhibits the level of survivability in CQC you're discussing here.  

Ummm... no.

In regard to what I'm posting:

CQC is most Krogan, most Vorcha, most Batarians, all shotguns, most SMG's, most Vanguards. Even an MQE with a shotty is fairly evil at CQC played right. And so on, and so forth.

Ranged is most adepts and engineers, some soldiers, non-shotty infiltrators, sniper rifles, assault rifles and so on.

ElectroNeonPanda wrote...
Secondly, with regards to farming, it wouldn't be as popular if the Store System wasn't so terribly implemented. The fact that you can waste days farming credits only to receive Ammo/Consumable IVs while still having Rare Gear/Weapons to unlock forces you into a mindset where you want to maximise your credit gain with the minimum of risk, at least when playing with randoms. Good luck ever getting a BW representative to acknowledge, let alone discuss, the shortcomings with the Store system though.

I don't have TOO much of a problem with the idea of the store. I just think it's balance is a little off. I'm fine with an RNG, just not one with such small percentages that you can go for packs and packs with only L IV ammo. I'm fine with them selling convenience (It's a legitimate strategy! after all   ). I just think they've made it TOO inconvenient for non-hardcore, (e.g. 2-4 hours per week) people.

Even if the store was fixed, I think people would farm or, at the very least, camp. It lets people push a little harder than they really should be and, as I've said in other posts... I don't have the right to tell them how they can or cannot play and I don't think anyone else (incl. BW) should either.

[stjabr]

ElectroNeonPanda wrote...

There are two issues that keep presenting themselves here.

Firstly, the term CQC can essentially be replaced by Infiltrator because, let's be honest here, the discussion is about ranged vs CQC mechanics as it relates to one class alone. No one else consistently uses SRs, they're essentially designed and balanced around the Infiltrator and no other class exhibits the level of survivability in CQC you're discussing here.

I have to strongly disagree with this, both in regards to talking about Infiltrators - these mechanics affect all classes - and in terms of Sniper Rifle usage. I used to consistently put a Viper/Indra/Valiant on my longe range casters, and Turian Soldier in particular. I loved it because I could use these sniper rifles, or switch for a Sabre/mid-range weapon, or even a shotgun/SMG and go CQC, all with the same character. How I handled the character with different loadoats against different enemies was up to me.

Now it feels like it's not really my call anymore, I have to account for CQC as there is just no getting away from it, regardless of how good your team is. I like the new enemies, but the tactics are too aggressive to preserve the same level of flexibility in how each person wants to play the game, based on each individuals preferences. I still love ME3 MP, it just seems to have lost one of it's greatest features though (compared to other games), for now at least.

EDIT:
To clarify - I never had a problem with the mechanics of the game regarding LR vs CQC pre-dlc. For me the thing that's made the difference are the new Dragoon and Bomber units. Cerberus needs an armored unit like the Dragoon, and Geth need the Bomber - of that I have no doubt - but the balance is off. Dragoons are too effective at getting up close and in your face, largely due to speed and numbers, while Bomber's do their job just fine, but as a result exacerbate the already numerous problems with the Geth.
With the right refinement, Dragoons can be a dangerous armored unit that are a threat you have to pay attention to, without bringing the entire enemy force with them into such a small area, therefore preserving the old flexibility in how each player wants to play their character.
Likewise, fix the Geth issues (stunlock, Hunters, Rockets, Turrets, etc) now that they have ungrabbable Pyro's and cover-clearing Bombers, and suddenly they will become fun and balanced at last.

ElectroNeonPanda wrote...

Secondly, with regards to farming, it wouldn't be as popular if the Store System wasn't so terribly implemented. The fact that you can waste days farming credits only to receive Ammo/Consumable IVs while still having Rare Gear/Weapons to unlock forces you into a mindset where you want to maximise your credit gain with the minimum of risk, at least when playing with randoms. Good luck ever getting a BW representative to acknowledge, let alone discuss, the shortcomings with the Store system though.

I kind of agree here though. The RNG has never bothered me especially so, but the addition of so many classes, weapons, gear, etc (a very very good thing, don't get me wrong!) has accentuated the downside of such a random system.

While most other features of the game have been tweaked, refined, rebalanced, and enhanced, the store has not evolved with them. The inventory has for all intents and purposes outgrown the system now, it's crying out for a re-working to at least give players more control over what they want to unlock, even if still not giving total control.

I can see the logic and the benefits of a random system, but only as long as it still provides a sense of progression. That sense of progression is getting lost now because of the sheer number of potential cards to drop. BioWare would do well to revise the store soon. (Note: Revise the mechanics, not remove the RNG entirely.)

Modifié par stjabr, 11 octobre 2012 - 04:40 .

[Thalamask]

frostycyke wrote...
It seems your problem isn't when the game itself, but playing in PUG's.The solution is to find some friends.

I want to be challenge when I play with my friends, I hardly ever play in PUG's, my friends work together, cover each other and play our assigned roles, the newer enemies is making things more interesting and I love it.

I'd hate for the game to be catered to friendless PUG players. if you wanna play long range stop playing in PUG's. Be social, make friends.

I have friends... most refused to get Origin, and those that did have gotten bored and left Mass Effect for newer games. Personally, I don't have the time to try to build up a complete new friends list for a single game.

While I don't believe that the game should be totally balance on PUGs, I do think that it's currently too imbalanced AGAINST them.

With decent players, some maxed out (not-rubbish) rares, gear and equipment in their manifest, PUGs should imho:
- Beat Bronze every time;
- Beat Silver 80%+;
- Best Gold 25%-50%; and
- Maybe, MAYBE a 5% chance at Platinum.

Currently, I'm seeing:
- Bronze 9 in 10
- Silver 40%-50%
- Gold 10%
and I haven't even tried Plat on PUG lately.

Maybe it's like somebody said. All the farmers are now clogging up the lobbies and they haven't worked out how to play "for real". I dunno. But PUGs have taken a massive plunge lately.